Defense attorneys in a high-profile San Bernardino County corruption case fought vigorously to get all or most of the charges thrown out Thursday on the second day of a court hearing.

The four defendants in the Colonies case had already won the dismissal of conspiracy charges the day before. The defense also won a key legal argument over the instructions to the grand jury that led to the original 29-count indictment in May 2011.

The big issue Thursday was whether that would mean the dismissal of about half of the charges or whether prosecutors would be allowed to amend the complaint, which would restore the charges.

After hearing arguments Wednesday afternoon and all day Thursday, Superior Court Judge Michael Smith said he wanted more time to make his decision. He plans to issue his ruling Monday morning.

The decision could have a critical impact on how the criminal case against Rancho Cucamonga developer Jeff Burum and three former county officials proceeds.

Burum, former county Supervisor Paul Biane, former Assistant Assessor Jim Erwin and Mark Kirk, former chief of staff to Supervisor Gary Ovitt, were charged with multiple felonies, including conspiracy to commit bribery, misappropriation of public funds and aiding and abetting in the commission of bribery.

Prosecutors allege Burum paid $400,000 in bribes to sham political action committees to win a $102 million settlement from the county to Burum’s company, Colonies Partners, in November 2006. All four defendants have pleaded not guilty and deny wrongdoing.

The case, which has gone through a lengthy appeal that went all the way to the California Supreme Court, is still at the pretrial stage.

Defense attorneys have filed five dismissal motions seeking to get all or most of the charges thrown out on a number of grounds, but are still arguing about the first motion.

The statute of limitations has been a key issue in the case because of the length of time it took to bring charges. The settlement was approved in November 2006 but the first charges of bribery were not raised in an indictment until February 2010 when Erwin and Bill Postmus, former supervisor and assessor, were initially charged.

Postmus later pleaded guilty and was among 45 witnesses who testified before a grand jury that expanded the case to indict Biane, Burum and Kirk in May 2011.

The issue before the court Thursday was the question of when did prosecutors or the county have enough information to trigger an investigation and whether that information was properly shared with the grand jury.

If, as prosecutors contend, investigators or county officials lacked evidence of a crime until a witness came forward in November 2008, the court could restore a dozen charges that Smith had tentatively thrown out due to improper jury instructions.

The dispute led to the unusual situation of the defense attorneys arguing that there was enough suspicion to trigger an investigation in November 2006 when the settlement was approved – even as they said there was no evidence of wrongdoing.

Burum’s attorney, Stephen Larson, presented grand jury testimony from the county’s civil attorneys in the Colonies case and the two supervisors who voted against it, raising suspicions about the $102 million settlement.

He also suggested that prosecutors could have interviewed Postmus, whose credibility the defense has repeatedly challenged during the case.

Deputy Attorney General Melissa Mandel said the prosecution case hinges on the alleged bribes, which investigators did not learn about until November 2008. Mandel said that, while the county’s attorneys questioned the appropriateness of the settlement, none had information of illegal activity two years earlier and advised the board that it was lawful to enter into it.

She noted that at the time of the settlement, Postmus made several public statements that the agreement was appropriate.

In questioning the attorneys, Smith kept going back to the same point: Was there enough information for prosecutors to investigate and potentially file charges?

“I think there has to be more than a suspicion,” Smith said. “Anybody can have a suspicion of anything.”

Join the conversation

We invite you to use our commenting platform to engage in insightful
conversations about issues in our community. Although we do not pre-screen comments,
we reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful,
threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent
or otherwise objectionable to us, and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy the law,
regulation, or government request. We might permanently block any user who abuses these conditions.